Guild of San Marcos Forum

Selection of upcoming actions to use as an interrupt is different from selection of already held actions to act. Again, any way you reconfigure the initiative after using a held action, it is in the player's best interest to take them in order from smallest to largest number. (since you will be using them individually and not in pairs). This is where the advantage of having a swordschool that increases the number on the die to match the current phase is also really evident.

Many of the character templates on the website say the character gets a poor weapon. The only differences I can find in the rules for weapon quality are Dracheneisen which it seems unless you are an Eisen noble you wouldn't have. Well unless you pulled it from the cold dead hand of an Eisen noble, in which case it would likely be an Eisen favored weapon type. MacEachern weapon which doesn't seem usefull for fighting non-Sidhe. Then Sidhe weapons that are of limited use outside Avalon.

So am I missing something mechanics-wise? If so where can I find this? Are there any other mechanically different types of weapons that might be available either off the rack or to order in Altimira?

Is this just an aesthetic difference? Poor weapons are utilitarian. Good ones have some embellishment. Fines ones have jewels etc.

spizio wrote:Many of the character templates on the website say the character gets a poor weapon. The only differences I can find in the rules for weapon quality are Dracheneisen which it seems unless you are an Eisen noble you wouldn't have. Well unless you pulled it from the cold dead hand of an Eisen noble, in which case it would likely be an Eisen favored weapon type. MacEachern weapon which doesn't seem usefull for fighting non-Sidhe. Then Sidhe weapons that are of limited use outside Avalon.

So am I missing something mechanics-wise? If so where can I find this? Are there any other mechanically different types of weapons that might be available either off the rack or to order in Altimira?

Is this just an aesthetic difference? Poor weapons are utilitarian. Good ones have some embellishment. Fines ones have jewels etc.

Well yes and no. Mechanically they are essentially the same (so same damage). However, if you look real carefully at the Eisenfaust school you find the Journeyman ability means practitioners can break your weapon. The roll is based on the thickness of the blade, HOWEVER, in just one tiny spot (PG p. 127) they mention that ...

The following modifiers can adjust these TN and are cumulative.
+5 is added to the TN for a quality weapon.
–5 is subtracted from the TN for an inferior weapon.

So to distinguish the Nobles from the non-nobles, I gave non-nobles an average sword (so TN is unchanged) and Nobles get a quality weapon (+5 to resist). I'd planned to split it into three (so if you had just base money and no discernable job, you got an inferior weapon) but I decided that was too much hassle given the lack of Journeymen Eisenfaust practitioners in the beginning of the campaign.

So then where the templates say poor you really mean average or do you mean inferior?

Originally Poor was inferior, but now it's just average...

More important, it looks shoddy and will not be impressing anyone. So no claiming to be a wealthy vendel nobleman.

HOLD THE PRESSES!!!

PG p. 187. second to the last paragraph

When using a firearm (pistols and muskets), a Hero fires against his target’s Passive Defense only. A Hero may not use Parry as his Passive Defense against firearms. Firearms may not be avoided with an Active Defense.

emphasis mine

Now I always knew you couldn't use Parry for your passive defense against firearms (this isn't Cathay for gods sake). But who knew you weren't allowed to use Footwork, Balance, or (maybe) Block (Shield) as an active defense against firearms?

Well I sure know a bunch of heroes who're about to get perforated here in Year 3...

This is why range modifiers need to be taken seriously when guns get drawn. As a balance to that rule.

And weather. And weapon/gunpowder quality.

It's still a chest wound, Grace.

Ressurrecting this thread because I realized I still had a bunch of unanswered questions. For reference, we move on to p. 190.

This is, in my opinion, the most egregious (and prone to abuse) error in the book. In the description for Surprise, it specifically states that a failed roll means the failer is surprised for a whole round (which as we all know, is most likely fatal to darn near anybody). Then, in the example it changes the whole thing up and makes a failed roll mean a phase of surprise (much more reasonable and the way I have handled it in the few of my home games where playes even bought the Ambush Knack). So first question. How do you handle surprise (or is it, like me, not really an issue for you)?

Now a thought. In many other places throughout the book you're allowed to take raises to gain extra effect. What about with ambush? And if we allow raises, how many are necessary to get what effect (e.g. If I take 2 raises does that equate to 2 extra phases of surprise, or must I take 2 to get one extra?)?

In my games, someone who is surprised is subject to one phase of pre-initiative action against them, with the person doing the surprising getting an extra action on phase zero. those who arent surprised get a corresponding action to defend themselves, shout a warning (too late to help the poor surprised sap) or so forth.


As for raises on ambush, I would say give them a free raise for each raise they call on their actions against surprised foes.

kenderleech wrote:In my games, someone who is surprised is subject to one phase of pre-initiative action against them, with the person doing the surprising getting an extra action on phase zero. those who arent surprised get a corresponding action to defend themselves, shout a warning (too late to help the poor surprised sap) or so forth.

I like your idea Ken, but I have a couple of questions. Ok lets say we have three heroes A, B, and C and three villains 1, 2, and 3.

The villains are going to try an ambush (cause they're EVIL, of course). So all three roll their Ambush rolls. They get 5, 10, and an unbelieveable 42.

The heroes try to stop them, rolling their ambush rolls (getting 7, 9, and 27).

So question 1 - Who is surprised and who isn't? If we assume they can only surprise one person, and for the sake of argument they lined up 1:A, 2:B, and 3:C. Then none of the villains are surprised (since they lead the ambush) A was not surprised and B and C were both surprised.\

HOWEVER, I could make the argument for it to come out this way. 3 (who rolled 42) has surprised everyone and can attack anyone he wants. C (who rolled 27) can ambush everyone but 3. 2 (10) can ambush A and B. A (7) and B (9) can only ambush 1. And poor one is the only one surprised.

ALTERNATELY, I could also argue that since the villains are doing the ambushing, they cannot be ambushed (since they aren't using wits (the Active Defense Trait) in their roll). So the heroes are either surprised or not. (In this case, 3 could ambush any hero he wants, since none beat him. 2 can ambush A or B, and 1 cannot ambush anyone)

Question 2 - How do we decide who is ambushing whom? Random decision? Ambushers pick?

The latter works fine when the PCs are doing the ambushing (since they don't know the relative capabilities of their opponents) but the GM can line em up to make the most use of their respective skills (I just see a potential for abuse).

Question 3 - Related to question 1, if it's the 1 on 1 ambush, is there any way to ambush more than one person?

Question 4 - Also back to question 1, the Alternate solution, how would one go about ambushing the ambushers? From this example it seems once you declare your action to ambush, you're now immune to being ambushed.

If the three villains are ambushing as a group, then they ambush as a group, with one roll, typically the leader, taking raises in a similar manner to helping other people with stealth. Personally i pick targets prior to rolling, and each individual hero has their own roll to see if they spot the ambush in advance. Yes, it means that sometimes the ambush is slightly tailored, but if they are competent villains, and not a random encounter, why would they not have some concept of who they were fighting.


As far as one person ambushing many, I would think that he would either jump out and see who looks shocked to see him and go after them, or use Traps instead. otherwise, the only way to get attacks on more then one at a time, would be either against brutes, or with the homebrewed knack "Multiple opponents"

Multiple Opponents
When facing two or more opponents, you may make two Attacks, two Parries, or a Parry and an Attack, per Action Die spent, providing no more than one of the Actions is directed at a single opponent. Each Attack or Parry uses half your Attack or Parry Knack (as appropriate), rounded down. You get a number of dice equal to your Rank in Multiple Opponents to divide between the two Actions as you see fit.


And to ambush an ambush, come up with a plan and roll. the other side makes their opposed check to see if they see it. So instead of being ABC's ambush vs 123's ambush, its ABC ambush vs 123 detection, and 123 ambush vs abc detection.

Well, Mark, like many rules systems for games, some mechanics break down under scrutiny. One example IMO was attacks of opportunity in D&D.

Grappling has many of the same issues in Combat as Ambush. If the guard doesn't have it and is a generic 2 NPC (all 2's for traits): Rodriguez would have 6k3 vs. 2k2.

The Combat rules in 7th Sea overall seem to be an attempt to simplify combat rather than to make it more realistically accurate. So such a big difference has suggested to me that "Round" in the first paragraph was a typo rather than a glitch, and "phase" was correct. Besides, the first Round in any 7th Sea Combat always has its pitfalls: at what phase should a Round begin?

And, what if Rodriguez has a Panache of 2 and the guard a Panache of 3, 4 or 5? Shouldn't that matter?

What of this sentence in the second paragraph: "You are allowed to Hold any Actions you would have normally received until you are no longer surprised"? That seems to reinforce "Phase" rather than Round.

And what of the single sentence following? "Surprise only works in a situation where you can approach the victim unobserved?" That seems to nullify the whole concept of Surprise entirely. Or leaves the situation up to the GM, to give him license to conduct the scene how he wishes it to proceed, theatrically as opposed to realistically. The outcome of Raises also seems more theatrical than realistic.

I agree with everything you said Mike. My questions were more aimed at trying to simplify it even further, in that, it seemed to me, a Surprise action could be even more fluid. In my example, it seemed that the villains (who initiated the surprise) could not then be surprised themselves. I was trying to clarify the heroes ability to turn the tables on them.

EDIT: And I really agree with you about how broken grappling is

Less a question for you all and more an interesting find (and one which doesn't make all that much sense to me). Turning the good book to p. 191 we find that when spending XP...

You may buy a new Background for 3, 6, or 9 XP, which gets you a 1–, 2–, or 3–point Background. You may only have a number of Backgrounds equal to your Rank in Panache. Thus, if you already have two Backgrounds, and you have a 3 Panache, you may purchase only one more Background.

So, to paraphrase, you can have a number of active Backgrounds equal to your Panache irrespective of the point value of said Background. Ok sure, fine, whatever, seems a bit odd though to even have this rule. I would think a more appropriate rule would be, You can buy a new Background for XP when you and your GM decide that some aspect of your adventures had been left unfinished and needed to be explored. Or alternately, Buy a new background when you and the GM agree you should.

Now I know that's a generic house rule, and I'm positive that's how most games deal with it. But looking at the original rule, I'm not sure why it's even necessary. Are we trying to keep players from forcing the GM to keep the spotlight on themselves? If so, I don't know that unlimited backgrounds is really a problem. I mean, after all, there's nothing that says the GM has to finish all the backgrounds at the same time. Ideally, the GM could still give equal time, such players would just have to play a lot longer to get things done. So maybe we are worried players will spend too many points on backgrounds? Really? Do I actually even need to address this idea? So maybe its that we want newbie GMs to have 'some' rule to point to, to bolster their rulings on the matter? If that's the case, then I really think the Second 7th Sea Golden Rule, (GMG p. 208) is far better.

The Second 7th Sea Golden Rule: If someone isn’t having fun, fix it.
Feel free to show your players the second rule if it’s necessary. We hope it isn’t, but if it is, there’s the rule in black and white, clear as crystal.

Cause really, "someone" includes the GM...

So, your thoughts on the matter?

I thought rule 2 was Cheat anyways.


But I think if someone wants to spend all their points on backgrounds, they should go for it. If nothing else, it means you can ad-lib a session or two of "Well, is there anything You want to get done tonight?"

kenderleech wrote:But I think if someone wants to spend all their points on backgrounds, they should go for it. If nothing else, it means you can ad-lib a session or two of "Well, is there anything You want to get done tonight?"

QFT

I simply don't see any reason not to let players go hogwild with backgrounds (Heck they're practically writing their own adventures and telegraphing what they want to play...)

It is a GM protection rule. For guys like us, extra backgrounds in a 4player game is no big deal.

But if you run a big game like mine used to be, you have 8-10 players with backgrounds all needing time and suddenly, you can no longer further the plotline.

The some guy like Jeremy realizes he can stockpile some XP and build a "romance with the villian" background after he gets captured. Now your plots are being thwartedby a background.

A limit exists to keep gm fromfeeling overwhelmed. In the case of the campaign, i will struggle to find session time to avoid the effects of session 4. Let alone deal with my own backgrounds.

You make good points. Which is why my personal players have to get approval when they spend XP.ANd i have nixxed things like "romance: the villian" before

kenderleech wrote:You make good points. Which is why my personal players have to get approval when they spend XP.ANd i have nixxed things like "romance: the villian" before

Well with my penchant for throwing multiple plots (both obvious and inobvious) Romance: Villain would probably just work into my evil plans...

Been There, Done That!

Time to resurrect this thread with another quick question. We have a player who wants to play Fuego in our new campaign, so we were looking up the rules for fire..... and we can't seem to find any beyond what happens when players are hit with fire from a trap (gm book pg200). Is that really the only mention of fire? or are we missing something. Under fuego feed knack it says you can use it to keep a fire going but take damage once per phase, but under something else... i think the flaming sword knack that keeps going per round. Just wanna make sure we aren't missing anything.

Actually the Fire rules (GM p.200) are for being on fire, not necessarily from a trap. But it does mention that being hit by fire does 2-8 dice of damage depending on the size of the fire (and that it does half that damage each successive round, so 6 dice of Fire Damage in the first round would be 3 dice in the second, 1 die in the third...) I assume that means if the fire is dying out. Cause I would think running through a burning building would have the same damage each round.

Yup you were correct, Flame Blade does 6 Flesh Wounds per Round. But in truth, all the Stunts cause flesh wounds when used, Fire-starting does 1 Flesh Wound when used, Hurl Fire does 2 Flesh Wounds every time it's used, Fireflies does 1 Flesh Wound when the cloud is created, and Flame Serpent does 3 Flesh Wounds to create the serpent.

So, my question is, what else were you looking for? This looks pretty complete to me so I'm not sure what you think is missing.